RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a viral illness characterized primarily by respiratory symptoms. However, patients with COVID-19 infection may also present with gastrointestinal symptoms. Subsequent complications can be associated with high morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of three COVID-19 positive patients who developed large intestinal perforations and an analysis of their clinical characteristics, diagnosis, surgical treatment and outcomes. Three patients aged 45, 51 and 82 years old presented to our institution between November 2021 and March 2022 and were diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). All three patients received steroids and underwent surgery during their admission. None of our patients had prior history of bowel perforation or risks factors justifying their presentation. PRESENTATION OF CASES: Our first patient was found to have an ascending colon perforation and underwent right colon resection and end ileostomy. Our second patient was found to have a cecal perforation and underwent ileocecectomy with end ileostomy and mucus fistula creation. Our third patient was found to have a large cecal perforation and underwent right hemicolectomy and was left in discontinuity during the index operation. DISCUSSION: GI perforation is a less common but serious extra-pulmonary complication of COVID-19. The cases in the present study involve ascending colon perforations in the setting of active COVID-19 infection that occurred within two to five weeks after initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Given viral replication in GI cells, the local inflammatory effect of viral infection in the GI may play a role in bowel perforation. Providers should additionally be aware of the risk of perforation with steroids and immunomodulators. Immunosuppressive effects of these therapies may mask the classical signs of abdominal sepsis and lead to possible missed diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal perforation is a rare but serious complication of COVID-19 infection. A high degree of clinical suspicion is necessary for timely diagnosis and management.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on injuries in men's lacrosse at the international level. As lacrosse's popularity grows rapidly across the globe, health care providers must understand how to treat lacrosse athletes. PURPOSE: To analyze injury data from the 2018 Men's World Lacrosse Championship. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: This study prospectively observed injuries that occurred during the 2018 Men's World Lacrosse Championship. The medical staff of each team completed injury report forms, and data were categorized into body part injury, type, mechanism, time, and location of injury. RESULTS: Over 11 days, 1019 athletes competed in 170 games, resulting in a total of 7147 athlete-exposures (AEs). A total of 140 injuries were recorded during the tournament for an injury rate of 19.6 per 1000 AEs (95% CI, 16.4-22.7). Overall, there were more contact injuries (n = 99; 70.7%) than noncontact injuries (n = 41; 29.3%) (P < .0001). Contact injuries most commonly affected the upper extremity, while noncontact injuries most commonly affected the lower extremity. Contusions were the most commonly reported injury type in the tournament (n = 41; 29.3%), followed by ligament sprains (n = 32; 22.9%) and muscle strains (n = 21; 15.0%). Although there was no difference between the first and second half of gameplay, the injury rate increased in the latter portion of each half (the first and third quarters vs the second and fourth quarters) (P < .0001). A total of 4 injuries required trips to the hospital. CONCLUSION: Lacrosse has a unique injury profile, as it includes both overhead and collision activity as well as multidirectional, cutting movements. Understanding common injury patterns may help with treatment and prevention. Fatigue may play a role in injury rate, and future research of within-game and within-tournament fatigue should explore this relationship.
RESUMO
Although the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injuries continues to rise, return to sport (RTS) rates remain low and risk of the second injury remains high. No gold-standard criteria exist for medical clearance to RTS after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The lack of consensus may be driven by the multifactorial nature of the clinical decision that includes a combination of physical and psychological factors. Tools such as the Quality of Movement Assessment, which identifies physical deficits and faulty movement patterns to provide targeted recommendations for safe RTS, and the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury Scale, which determines psychological readiness by measuring an athlete's emotions, confidence, and risk appraisal, have been developed in recent years. This review summarizes the existing evidence regarding RTS and highlights the need for a comprehensive evaluation of an athlete's readiness to return.
